|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
 Posted: Wed May 13, 2009 3:26 am Post subject: Re: Dawkins is wrong about believers |
 |
|
| Patrick Bateman wrote: |
No, you should read a book about atheism if you want to have an opinion on atheism and atheists.
So, you make a thread about atheism, you say negative things about some atheists, yet know nothing about atheism. |
That is absurd. You don't need to read books to be an atheist or have an opinion on atheists. What the hell do you need to know about atheism? It simply means you don't believe in a deity. Are there schools of atheist thought and different ways of atheist life that I can read about? How about Atheist studies where I can study different Atheist cultures around the world?
I was born and raised an atheist by atheists. They never once gave me any guidance on my Atheism. Never said, be sure to stay true to your atheist principles and follow the true path of Atheism. Here are some books to guide you to the light, and we will pack you off to Athiest Class every Sunday. They never even announced themselves as Athiests to me (actually, I have a deep suspicion my father remained slightly agnostic) nor advised me that I was one. Our atheism was never acknowledged nor discussed. It wasn't a secret. It wasn't anything at all.
This is one of the funniest concepts I have come across in weeks. That atheism requires tutorage and deep reading! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Wed May 13, 2009 4:14 am Post subject: Re: Dawkins is wrong about believers |
|
|
| Patrick Bateman wrote: |
| I don�t know about you, but I�d rather have an atheist, who cares about this life, in charge, than a religious person who believes that there�s always the next life. |
False. In a secular society there should be enough checks and balances in place that a leader's religion doesn't matter. [Obviously GWB's rise to power didn't take place in a very secular society]. As long as s/he is not some rabid fundamentalist (of any persuasion) and remained wise and had a desire to advance our society, I shouldn't care if s/he was Hindu Christian Jewish Agnostic or whathaveyou.
And why is an Atheist necessarily a better leader than a religious person? I'd sooner have a national leader with Christian beliefs such as say, Kevin Rudd the Australian PM, than some Atheist loon like Stalin. How about you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ED209
Joined: 17 Oct 2006
|
| Posted: Wed May 13, 2009 5:12 am Post subject: Re: Dawkins is wrong about believers |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
And why is an Atheist necessarily a better leader than a religious person? I'd sooner have a national leader with Christian beliefs such as say, Kevin Rudd the Australian PM, than some Atheist loon like Stalin. How about you? |
Damn, are those the only two choices. How long do we have to decide? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Wed May 13, 2009 5:21 am Post subject: Re: Dawkins is wrong about believers |
|
|
| ED209 wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
And why is an Atheist necessarily a better leader than a religious person? I'd sooner have a national leader with Christian beliefs such as say, Kevin Rudd the Australian PM, than some Atheist loon like Stalin. How about you? |
Damn, are those the only two choices. How long do we have to decide? |
Why would they be the only two choices? The hypothetical world is your oyster. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Wed May 13, 2009 6:18 am Post subject: Re: Dawkins is wrong about believers |
|
|
| Patrick Bateman wrote: |
And I tried to be polite in my response and ask a serious question (which by the way related to the crutch of your topic), yet you personally attack me. Wow. Not even worth my time. I�m sorry I wanted to enter some sort of discourse with you.
|
OK, fair enough. Due to your name I took as you a mischeivous troll. But is it really that hard to get your head around what "atheist dogmatism" might be in the context of the OP?
And this question is just too ironic, I thought it had to be intentional.
| Master Bates wrote: |
| Perhaps you could enlighten me as to what exactly an atheist fundamentalist is and what they believe? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Patrick Bateman
Joined: 21 Apr 2009
Location: Lost in Translation
|
| Posted: Wed May 13, 2009 7:22 am Post subject: Re: Dawkins is wrong about believers |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Patrick Bateman wrote: |
No, you should read a book about atheism if you want to have an opinion on atheism and atheists.
So, you make a thread about atheism, you say negative things about some atheists, yet know nothing about atheism. |
That is absurd. You don't need to read books to be an atheist or have an opinion on atheists. What the hell do you need to know about atheism? It simply means you don't believe in a deity. Are there schools of atheist thought and different ways of atheist life that I can read about? How about Atheist studies where I can study different Atheist cultures around the world?
I was born and raised an atheist by atheists. They never once gave me any guidance on my Atheism. Never said, be sure to stay true to your atheist principles and follow the true path of Atheism. Here are some books to guide you to the light, and we will pack you off to Athiest Class every Sunday. They never even announced themselves as Athiests to me (actually, I have a deep suspicion my father remained slightly agnostic) nor advised me that I was one. Our atheism was never acknowledged nor discussed. It wasn't a secret. It wasn't anything at all.
This is one of the funniest concepts I have come across in weeks. That atheism requires tutorage and deep reading! |
We just won't see eye to eye on this matter. Yes, I think that a person regardless of religion or lack there of, should constantly strive to challenge their thoughts on such a matter. And yes, I think it is an excellent idea that an atheist read books by other atheists because, living in such a religious world, there are plenty of things worth talking about. The buck doesn't stop with, "ok, I'm an atheist, leave me alone." The fact of the matter is, what can and should be done in the world is a considerably important topic for an atheist.
| Big_Bird wrote: |
False. In a secular society there should be enough checks and balances in place that a leader's religion doesn't matter. [Obviously GWB's rise to power didn't take place in a very secular society]. As long as s/he is not some rabid fundamentalist (of any persuasion) and remained wise and had a desire to advance our society, I shouldn't care if s/he was Hindu Christian Jewish Agnostic or whathaveyou.
And why is an Atheist necessarily a better leader than a religious person? I'd sooner have a national leader with Christian beliefs such as say, Kevin Rudd the Australian PM, than some Atheist loon like Stalin. How about you? |
You're right, that was an error on my part. I agree that a politician's personal religious beliefs should not influence whether or not they are in power. But, I don't think a person needs to be a "rabid fundamentalist" to still be a concern. A politician can and should believe whatever they like, but when it comes to politics, they should only concern themselves with the public.
| Big_Bird wrote: |
OK, fair enough. Due to your name I took as you a mischeivous troll. But is it really that hard to get your head around what "atheist dogmatism" might be in the context of the OP? |
No, not a troll. I have been here for less than a month, don't instigate personal attacks on other users, and don't attempt to get attention. I chose my name because PB is a literary figure that I find very interesting and difficult to fully understand. I had recently rewatched the movie and the name was fresh in my head. I wouldn't read too much into it.
Yes, it is hard to wrap my head around an "atheist dogmatism" since, like you've said yourself, atheism in-it-and-of itself has only one belief, the lack of a God. There is no authority for atheism to set down "truths" and make them dogmatic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
postfundie
Joined: 28 May 2004
|
| Posted: Wed May 13, 2009 7:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Patrick Bateman wrote:
No, you should read a book about atheism if you want to have an opinion on atheism and atheists.
So, you make a thread about atheism, you say negative things about some atheists, yet know nothing about atheism.
|
Other people made similar comments. It might actually be important to read Dawkins or Dennett or Hitchens. Since you are obviously describing a certain type of atheist that annoys you, you should probably read their "leaders"....
| Quote: |
I'm not interested in you, or your reading habits. I'll be quite happy if I never see you here again.
|
Again the double standard. We must completely understand this person, but others don't have to understand the person they are debating.
| Quote: |
That's the problem with your reasoning. When I object to each and every Muslim being held responsibility for the crimes of the few, you then (in a bizarre jump of reasoning) deduce that I am excusing the crimes of the few. That's why I find you so impossible to reason with. You don't approach it (or me) rationally.
|
This is important because you can't seem to understand where the bad muslims are getting their ideas. Or where do ordinary Muslims get their ideas on Homosexuality from? Hint: mostly likely its The Koran and Hadith. THe Koran and the Hadith are full of lots of verses that say many different things. We should be allowed to verbally attack this body of literature. For example a Muslim girl can't marry a Christian guy but the opposite is ok? They come from the Koran and the prophet. When we or others try to deligitimize the Koran or example of the prophet. We have to hear a defense of the prophet and the Koran that inevitably ends with you saying, "wow you sure hate muslims or Man you are obsessed" and other forms of psycho-babbly drivel.
| Quote: |
Firstly, that there is one blanket form of Islam. There is not. There are different schools of thought in Islam, and within that each follower takes their own path.
Secondly, there is critical thought amongst many Muslim scholars. You just haven't sought it out. I've read some very interesting arguments. You prefer to get your theology from tabloid headlines, perhaps?
Thirdly, I take issue with all muslims being treated as one block.
|
First: We know we know...it's the things they hold in common that bug the hell out of us...like for instance that man muhammed is the perfect example for all mankind, and that people should listen to that hate filled book. Did you also know there's four main schools of jurispudence in Islam..all calling for the death penalty for Homosexuals? I don't see why you don't have a problem with this.
Secondly..HHahaah yeah....Historical criticism is widly accepted in Muslim circles..what happens to authors who write criticically about Muhammed or the Koran??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Thirdly: a nice mantra to repeat anytime someone attempts to deligitimze the Koran or the prophet.
| Quote: |
| Again, you are one of these tiresome monkeys who can't be bothered to understand what he is reading. |
Translation: I may name call and slander who I like and be as rude as I like but if you respond too much you are obsessed with me and muslims. seriously get help.
| Quote: |
| What has become increasingly annoying over the past several years is this new repugnant trend of intolerant holier-than-thou proletysing internet warrior athiests who sneer condescendingly at the unenlightened, patting themselves smugly on their back for their own brilliant good sense. They've become as big a pain in the arse as their theist counterparts |
This is the point of this thread. The atheists who annoy me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Wed May 13, 2009 7:37 am Post subject: Re: Dawkins is wrong about believers |
|
|
| Patrick Bateman wrote: |
| The buck doesn't stop with, "ok, I'm an atheist, leave me alone." The fact of the matter is, what can and should be done in the world is a considerably important topic for an atheist. |
What a laugh. Are you sure you are not trolling? So now an atheist has a duty to continue to upgrade on their atheism? Why would it be considerably important to every atheist? What books do you recommend regarding 'what can and should be done in the world' and how would they differ from the the books a theist might read?
| Quote: |
| But, I don't think a person needs to be a "rabid fundamentalist" to still be a concern. A politician can and should believe whatever they like, but when it comes to politics, they should only concern themselves with the public. |
That may depend on the level of secularism in your society. The threshold for what makes a fundie is going to be an awful lot lower for a Brit like me than American chap quite accustomed to his co-nationalists' religious ferver.
| Quote: |
| Yes, it is hard to wrap my head around an "atheist dogmatism" since, like you've said yourself, atheism in-it-and-of itself has only one belief, the lack of a God. There is no authority for atheism to set down "truths" and make them dogmatic. |
Get with the context of the OP and interpret from there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Wed May 13, 2009 8:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| postfundie wrote: |
| Other people made similar comments. It might actually be important to read Dawkins or Dennett or Hitchens. Since you are obviously describing a certain type of atheist that annoys you, you should probably read their "leaders".... |
Would learning more about Jesus help me understand a fundie like George Bush? I seriously doubt it. I seriously doubt George Bush and his demeanor/behaviour/ethics resemble that of Christ in any way.
So burying my nose in books by Dawkins and Hitchens is going to make the evangelistic atheists more tolerable? I seriously doubt it. Besides there are plenty of agreeable atheists and theist alike who have read these chaps, and didn't transform into atheist fundies. There's obviously other factors at play, not just the writings of these two fellows. Reading them is not the key.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
I'm not interested in you, or your reading habits. I'll be quite happy if I never see you here again.
|
Again the double standard. We must completely understand this person, but others don't have to understand the person they are debating. |
[quote]
Truly, I'm not that interested in you, pf. It's you who foists yourself in my path. Given the choice of adversaries on the board, I would never seek you out. I find you too dull. I find you too predictable. I find your assumptions about me entirely predictable. And since you have no real interest in what I/me/myself thinks, what's the point? There's nothing in it for me. It's a one-sided dialogue, in which what I think/say is of little consequence. You've made up your mind where I stand, even on issues that I haven't. You have your axe to grind, and you're merely having a dialogue with the European PC leftie types you met on your adventures - what I really think and feel is immaterial.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
That's the problem with your reasoning. When I object to each and every Muslim being held responsibility for the crimes of the few, you then (in a bizarre jump of reasoning) deduce that I am excusing the crimes of the few. That's why I find you so impossible to reason with. You don't approach it (or me) rationally.
|
This is important because you can't seem to understand where the bad muslims are getting their ideas. Or where do ordinary Muslims get their ideas on Homosexuality from? Hint: mostly likely its The Koran and Hadith. THe Koran and the Hadith are full of lots of verses that say many different things. We should be allowed to verbally attack this body of literature. For example a Muslim girl can't marry a Christian guy but the opposite is ok? They come from the Koran and the prophet. When we or others try to deligitimize the Koran or example of the prophet. |
Is this what keeps you awake at night? Look, postie, if you are homosexual, just don't convert to Islam and settle somewhere like Iran, OK. It's that simple. And will railing at me help you help the homosexuals in places like Iran? Will your constant snipes about PC lefties and obsession with 'repugnant morals' help you or any other homosexual? Are you going to free the world's homosexuals? Is that your new mission?
Where do Christians and Jews get their ideas about homosexuals from? There's not much that can be done about it, for those that insist on their dogma. What do you suggest? Re-education camps for homophobic Xtians and the like? And how about Chinese communists and atheist Soviets - where do they get their ideas about homosexuals from? I find that question far more interesting myself.
Homosexuals are despised/reviled in most societies, muslim or not. Which corner of the world are you going to start your reforms? I don't know where this primitive hate stems from, I've never shared it (maybe it's a guy thing?), but you're taking on much of humanity if you're going to make this world a safe place for every homosexual. Good luck with that. It would be nice to see you succeed. But don't think railing at me will affect things one way or the other.
Study where people get their ideas on homosexuals from as much as you like, it's an interesting topic and I have no objection to you doing so. Why would I object? I don't object to anyone studying the Bible - why would I object to people studying the Koran? I don't recall ever discussing homosexuals with you until this thread. Now you are complaining that I haven't been allowing you to discuss homosexuals? I'm baffled.
You are free to discuss homosexuals to your hearts content. I've never objected. Just don't demand that I discuss it with you, or demand I start insisting on the end of Islam because of it. It's not for me to demand the end of Islam/Christianity or whateverelse. It's for the people in those systems to work it out. I wish they would, but I'm not going to spend my freetime obsessing on it.
But the existence of the Koran and/or harsh attitudes towards homosexuality do not make it indirectly acceptable to blow up muslim children and grab their land and oil. Nor does it make it acceptable to claim that all muslims are full of hatred etc etc. Since those are more in line with my objections, and the types of discussions I've had on this forum, I don't understand where you have got this idea that I don't believe you should be allowed to question the koran/bible/torah. What I do strenously object to is you demanding that your own hatefilled literalist interpretation of the Koran be treated as the uniform interpretation for all muslims. The Koran is interpreted differently, just as the Bible is, and Islam is practised differently depending on your location and personality.
The Muslims I know are appalled by such 'practioners' as the Taleban, and certainly do not favour living in a theocracy like Iran. In fact, even observant Muslims I know favour secular government. They're not all hovering about desperately waiting for their chance to impose a harsh interpretation of Sharia law.
In fact, my main objection has always been against those who treat 1.5 human beings as if they were one homogenous block of vicious hate-filled killers.
| Quote: |
| We have to hear a defense of the prophet and the Koran that inevitably ends with you saying, "wow you sure hate muslims or Man you are obsessed" and other forms of psycho-babbly drivel. |
Um OK... I don't recall any of this. Are you sure you weren't fantasising about me? Or just substituting past conversations with Euro PC Lefties interchangeably with conversations you've had with BB?
Edit: perhaps you are angry that I have objected to certain interpretations of the Koran being accepted here as universal. You may wish to interpret the Koran in a harsh literalist way. I have every right to point out that most Muslims do not interpret it the way the Wahhibists and Taleban do. That was my objection to BJWD on this matter, him insisting his own literalist reading of the (translated) Koran was shared by all muslims.
| Quote: |
| First: We know we know...it's the things they hold in common that bug the hell out of us...like for instance that man muhammed is the perfect example for all mankind, and that people should listen to that hate filled book. Did you also know there's four main schools of jurispudence in Islam..all calling for the death penalty for Homosexuals? I don't see why you don't have a problem with this. |
Crikey. Here we go with the homosexuals again. You want me to spend my days here railing about the treatment of homosexuals around the world? I may have a 'problem with it', but what good does that do me? Since it is universally agreed by most young Western people that homosexuals should have equal rights with heterosexuals, how will it make for an interesting debate on these forums? You want me to rail against religions that teach death as a penalty? The Jews also have death penalties and stonings for stuff. Do I need to get on their case too? The Talmud condones sex with 3 years olds. Shall we get on their case too? How does Judaism deal with homosexuals? I'm don't recall being very interested before, I'll wager judaism didn't invent gay weddings.
Whatever may be the official attitude to homosexuality, I do know that there is a lot of homosexual sex going on in North Africa, and in the Middle East. If you feel you're missing out, you've probably been looking in the wrong bars. It's not officially sanctioned of course, but I'm told (by muslim men) that it is quite the norm - especially as girls are harder to come by.
Again, I'm not going to stop objecting to wars that maim and kill muslim children (some of them homosexual children) just because there are a-holes amongst the 1.5 billion people that make up the world's muslim population. Whatever hate-on there may be of homosexuals in the world, there's no justification for wanton killing of Arab civillians in Gaza and Beirut. Nor is there justification for villifying the entire Muslim populace (many of whom are homosexuals themselves). Since these are generally the things I have mostly discussed on this forum (with regard to the muslim world), I don't know where all this other crap is coming from.
As for the question about Christian men not being allowed to marry muslim women, I can give you the answer. It's because it was assumed that the kids would take on the religion of the father. Thereofre, the wife didn't need to convert, but the husband did. Quite a practical rule, if you're trying to increase the numbers to your sect.
You think the book is hate-filled. I don't think it is necessarily more hate-filled than the Bible. In fact the OT is pretty horrendous, and condones all kinds of sh.t. I read some of it as a 9 year old, and was quite surprised. As for the Torah and the Talmud, well, you don't want to read what they say about gentiles then.
| Quote: |
| Secondly..HHahaah yeah....Historical criticism is widly accepted in Muslim circles..what happens to authors who write criticically about Muhammed or the Koran?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? |
I didn't suggest they did. But their interpretations of the Koran are wildly different, and sometimes very compatible with feminism and other modern values.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Again, you are one of these tiresome monkeys who can't be bothered to understand what he is reading. |
Translation: I may name call and slander who I like and be as rude as I like but if you respond too much you are obsessed with me and muslims. seriously get help. |
I don't mind a bit of rough play on these forums - up to a point. When it gets to the point that a poster has been targetting me in a hostile manner for 4 years (yes, since my 4 and a half year old boy was just a few months old) that's going too far, and I'm well within my rights to ask you to stop.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| What has become increasingly annoying over the past several years is this new repugnant trend of intolerant holier-than-thou proletysing internet warrior athiests who sneer condescendingly at the unenlightened, patting themselves smugly on their back for their own brilliant good sense. They've become as big a pain in the arse as their theist counterparts |
This is the point of this thread. The atheists who annoy me. |
Yea. Did it take you that long?
Last edited by Big_Bird on Wed May 13, 2009 10:04 am; edited 6 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed May 13, 2009 8:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Patrick Bateman wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
I haven't read the OT in Hebrew, but I was careful in what translation I purchased. As for the NT, yes I've read some of it in Greek. Its the easiest (ancient) Greek you'll find.
Some anti-theists don't appreciate allegory.
David and Goliath did happen. A mobile guerilla force defeated a large standing army. How does it make it false that its characterized as a small man flinging a stone at a large one? You know, this is what art, literature, and drama does.
Learn how to read.
And Fox, personal opinions about the Bible aside, its important to read if only because of the vast amount of Western Literature that makes reference to it. Its part of the entire Western canon, which RD and the Four Horsemen are attacking, even if they're not aware of it. |
OK, the Bible is allegory, I'll play along. Actually, some of the most intelligent religious scholars I have ever read argued that the Bible and it's stories were nothing more than pretty pictures for those incapable of fully pondering the mystery and wonder of God. Granted, these were Medieval Muslim scholars, I believe Alfarabi and/or Avicenna. |
No, I don't believe Avicenna put it quite that way.
| Patrick Bateman wrote: |
| Yes, the Bible is inarguably one of, if not the, most influential and important books in the Western canon. The problem I have is, beautiful allegory it may be, but it is also a very dangerous book. If read as fiction/literature, I'm perfectly fine with it. I get bothered/scared to death, when people start fighting and killing over it. If the world read Romeo and Juliet and became divided amongst Capulet and Montague, I'd be equally concerned about works of Shakespeare. |
That's a problem the individual has, not the book. If you want a full perspective on it, just read Don Quixote, which addresses this problem well, if not briefly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
postfundie
Joined: 28 May 2004
|
| Posted: Wed May 13, 2009 1:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
I don't mind a bit of rough play on these forums - up to a point. When it gets to the point that a poster has been targetting me in a hostile manner for 4 years (yes, since my 4 and a half year old boy was just a few months old) that's going too far, and I'm well within my rights to ask you to stop.
Quote:
Quote:
What has become increasingly annoying over the past several years is this new repugnant trend of intolerant holier-than-thou proletysing internet warrior athiests who sneer condescendingly at the unenlightened, patting themselves smugly on their back for their own brilliant good sense. They've become as big a pain in the arse as their theist counterparts
This is the point of this thread. The atheists who annoy me.
Yea. Did it take you that long?
|
uhh you mean in continual disagreement with you for four years...again the victimology.
It took me a while to figure out the that the topic of this thread is the irritation that you suffer from RD types. I was busy being lectured on what it means to contribute to the CE forum and I didn't have time to see that contributing means reading an article in the guardian and getting peeved at people on this message board then posting so you can vent your irritation at the fundie atheist types.
Again I harp on the homosexual issue because well I believe they shouldn't be killed. Sorry if I continually make that an issue. The debate back in the states is just over the word 'marriage'..far less at stake there..
| Quote: |
| So burying my nose in books by Dawkins and Hitchens is going to make the evangelistic atheists more tolerable? I seriously doubt it. Besides there are plenty of agreeable atheists and theist alike who have read these chaps, and didn't transform into atheist fundies. There's obviously other factors at play, not just the writings of these two fellows |
as a general rule of thumb it's not a good idea to criticise those you have not read. Which is one reason why I'm here studying..and talking to people, not spending all my ding dong day on an internet forum.
| Quote: |
| I find you too predictable. I find your assumptions about me entirely predictable |
finally WE AGREE on something because I was seriously going to say the exact same thing..
| Quote: |
Are you going to free the world's homosexuals? Is that your new mission?
|
Let the homosexuals alone..let them live in peace and not harm others and let them be free from the religious laws of others.....I think you'd say the same about the Palestinians and I would agree with you..
| Quote: |
| Just don't demand that I discuss it with you, or demand I start insisting on the end of Islam because of it |
I will never demand the end of Islam. Mystics in Caves and in the desert, or in the local mosque or muslim home, speaking with God or receiving messages from God bothers me not in the least. What irks me is the fact that Islam is the world's biggest sacred cow...above criticism in so many places..even to the point that they will execute you...this is not freedom.
and:
لا تنسى ان تاخذ الدواء |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Patrick Bateman
Joined: 21 Apr 2009
Location: Lost in Translation
|
| Posted: Wed May 13, 2009 3:40 pm Post subject: Re: Dawkins is wrong about believers |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Patrick Bateman wrote: |
What a laugh. Are you sure you are not trolling? So now an atheist has a duty to continue to upgrade on their atheism? Why would it be considerably important to every atheist? What books do you recommend regarding 'what can and should be done in the world' and how would they differ from the the books a theist might read? |
You really need to get over this whole me being a troll thing. The fact of the matter is, it makes you seem weak by trying to attack me rather than simply responding to, or commenting on what I said. Please explain to me how exactly I am a troll, since I was kind enough to explain my understanding of the term.
No, you are missing the point. Atheism is not a religion, but surely you can see the importance of reading on such a topic. Let's see...religion, for better or worse, has steered ALL aspects of government, life, and society on the planet Earth for over 5,000 years. And let's be honest, things aren't so great. When did atheism get any sort of attention/legitimacy, at least in public and the free exchange? Maybe around 70 years ago with Bertrand Russell. Before Bertrand Russell, I can only think about Nietzsche and JS Mill saying anything bad about religion without putting another religion above it. And yes, I am fully aware that some authors looked critically at religion and maybe even poked fun at it a bit, but I'm talking about completely denouncing religion. So, religion is completely saturated in every turn your eye can take in the world. Don't you think it might be a tiny bit important to consider how to reevaluate, well a lot?
It's important not for an atheist to be an atheist, but to participate in the human condition. And since you haven't read anything by an atheist, then of course you wouldn't know about the differences between their take on how to fix things, and a theist. But if you were asking that question in general, an atheist writer is different because they don't acknowledge religion as a solution, which is a pretty considerable thing.
And I never said every atheist. So please don't misrepresent my words.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Thu May 14, 2009 12:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| postfundie wrote: |
| uhh you mean in continual disagreement with you for four years...again the victimology. |
I don't mind people disagreeing with me. Or why would I come here? It would be quite legitimate for you to write a post in order to query or disagree with something I'd written on the same thread. But you step over the line. You don't just come to disagree, you come to bring up crap from years ago. Look how you behaved on this thread. First, check out your first post on this thread.
Then look at this earlier post:
| postfundie wrote: |
| Quote: |
| I certainly think it is in poor taste to go harping on about yourself being an atheist or a buddhist or whatever else have you, unless it is a private conversation between two very well acquainted people. |
some how I don't think this applies to Muslims. |
Trying to bring up my (supposed) views on muslims - for what purpose? I hadn't been discussing muslims. It wasn't relevant. Just your snide and personal crap. Totally juvenile. I have never sought you out on threads and brought up shyte from the past. You protest that you are not obsessed with muslims and my views on them, and yet you routinely come here to discuss that very thing with me.
I am not obliged to discuss muslims at every turn. I am not obliged to discuss them on every thread. I am not obliged to discuss them with you, whenever you demand. It's not my raison d'etre.
| Quote: |
| It took me a while to figure out the that the topic of this thread is the irritation that you suffer from RD types. I was busy being lectured on what it means to contribute to the CE forum and I didn't have time to see that contributing means reading an article in the guardian and getting peeved at people on this message board then posting so you can vent your irritation at the fundie atheist types. |
I can start a thread about whatever I like. And if you address me, I am allowed to disagree with your assesssment. Why are you crying about this? The thread has been quite interesting (apart from the stupid crap between you and I) - why not read the discussions and enjoy - instead of still getting your knickers in a twist about the OP, 7 pages later.
| Quote: |
| Again I harp on the homosexual issue because well I believe they shouldn't be killed. Sorry if I continually make that an issue. The debate back in the states is just over the word 'marriage'..far less at stake there.. |
The thread is not about homosexuals. You are quite free to discuss homosexuals with whomever chooses to discuss them with you. Why not start a thread about homosexuals and discuss it there? This is not the appropriate thread for demanding I discuss homosexuals with you. This thread is about irritating atheists - not muslim homosexuals.
| Quote: |
| as a general rule of thumb it's not a good idea to criticise those you have not read. Which is one reason why I'm here studying..and talking to people, not spending all my ding dong day on an internet forum. |
You still haven't figured out the target of the OP.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| I find you too predictable. I find your assumptions about me entirely predictable |
finally WE AGREE on something because I was seriously going to say the exact same thing.. |
Yes Yes Yes!
That's Great!
So if you don't find me interesting - why do you keep bothering me??? I never bother you because I find you dull. If you feel the same about me, then why do you feel compelled to keep bothering me all these years later? I don't want you to find me interesting. Please don't. Please please please stop talking to me and go and talk to the people that interest you. That would make me so happy!
| Quote: |
| Let the homosexuals alone..let them live in peace and not harm others and let them be free from the religious laws of others.....I think you'd say the same about the Palestinians and I would agree with you.. |
Again - why do you bring this up with me? How can I help any of these homosexuals? I can only try to affect what happens in my own society. I can't save the homosexuals in Iran. Why do you ask this of me? What are you doing to save the homosexuals in Iran?
| Quote: |
| I will never demand the end of Islam. Mystics in Caves and in the desert, or in the local mosque or muslim home, speaking with God or receiving messages from God bothers me not in the least. What irks me is the fact that Islam is the world's biggest sacred cow...above criticism in so many places..even to the point that they will execute you...this is not freedom. |
And you deal with this by coming to an unrelated thread and bringing up stupid crap like this:
| postfundie wrote: |
| Quote: |
| I certainly think it is in poor taste to go harping on about yourself being an atheist or a buddhist or whatever else have you, unless it is a private conversation between two very well acquainted people. |
some how I don't think this applies to Muslims. |
And by doing crap like that, you achieve what exactly?
| Quote: |
| لا تنسى ان تاخذ الدواء |
You're so witty! Yes, perhaps I need it when you're around. In the form of headache tablets perhaps. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Thu May 14, 2009 1:01 am Post subject: Re: Dawkins is wrong about believers |
|
|
| Patrick Bateman wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Patrick Bateman wrote: |
What a laugh. Are you sure you are not trolling? So now an atheist has a duty to continue to upgrade on their atheism? Why would it be considerably important to every atheist? What books do you recommend regarding 'what can and should be done in the world' and how would they differ from the the books a theist might read? |
You really need to get over this whole me being a troll thing. The fact of the matter is, it makes you seem weak by trying to attack me rather than simply responding to, or commenting on what I said. Please explain to me how exactly I am a troll, since I was kind enough to explain my understanding of the term.
No, you are missing the point. Atheism is not a religion, but surely you can see the importance of reading on such a topic. Let's see...religion, for better or worse, has steered ALL aspects of government, life, and society on the planet Earth for over 5,000 years. And let's be honest, things aren't so great. When did atheism get any sort of attention/legitimacy, at least in public and the free exchange? Maybe around 70 years ago with Bertrand Russell. Before Bertrand Russell, I can only think about Nietzsche and JS Mill saying anything bad about religion without putting another religion above it. And yes, I am fully aware that some authors looked critically at religion and maybe even poked fun at it a bit, but I'm talking about completely denouncing religion. So, religion is completely saturated in every turn your eye can take in the world. Don't you think it might be a tiny bit important to consider how to reevaluate, well a lot?
It's important not for an atheist to be an atheist, but to participate in the human condition. And since you haven't read anything by an atheist, then of course you wouldn't know about the differences between their take on how to fix things, and a theist. But if you were asking that question in general, an atheist writer is different because they don't acknowledge religion as a solution, which is a pretty considerable thing.
And I never said every atheist. So please don't misrepresent my words.
|
|
Um, please learn to use the quote function. Second, that was the biggest load of garble I have read in ages.
I don't read stuff by atheists? There are atheists all over the place. How can I avoid reading stuff by atheists? I should read stuff about the human condition? - can you be more specific? Secondly, I don't read about religion as a solution. I haven't been reading about any religion's take on how to fix the human condition. Why would I?
Your post just seems vague and pointless. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Thu May 14, 2009 8:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I wonder if the same applies to atheist fundamentalists?
| Quote: |
So there are some interesting communalities across our subgroups. As
different as Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism are from one another,
the fundamentalists in each religion seem to be the same kind of
people-at least in our samples. As indicated by the content of the RF scale
items, our high fundamentalists tended to (predictably) believe their religion
is the "one, true" religion and they are God's "special people." But they also tend to believe their religion is perfect as it stands, and any modification
would be wrong. They also believe they are opposed by powerful, evil forces
in this world, including other religions, which must be vigorously fought.
They are highly submissive to the established authorities in their lives,
adhere closely to the conventions of their religion, and are quite aggressive
toward sanctioned targets.
Most interesting of all, they would probably be "true believers" in any of
the other religions involved, and most hostile toward their present religion,
if they had grown up Muslims instead of Jews, Hindus instead of Muslims,
Jews instead of Christians, etc. As the fundamentalists in different religions
face each other, they are facing themselves. |
http://pdfserve.informaworld.com/409016_731429746_785041693.pdf |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
